Re: Mandatory -dbg packages for libraries?
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:05:22 -0400, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> said:
>> I would rather add it as a recommended practice in policy, with a
>> note that it will become a should/must as we get better coverage, and
>> _also_ provide examples of what maintainers need to do to create
>> separate debugging symbol packages in an informative footnote.
> Well, we've made more than ~300 packages insta-buggy with policy
> changes before. It's not insta-rc-buggy. OTOH, I don't really care;
> 300 bug reports could be mass-filed w/o it being a "should" in policy.
If I have inadvertently done so in the past, I feel the need to
apologize, but my past mistakes do not condone me making the same
errors again.
> Note that I've already written some documentation for
> developers-reference in #420540.
Thanks. Now that we have released Etch, I need to be getting
back at updating policy again, there are a number of issues sitting on
my TODO list.
> The policy-relevant bits are that we use
> /usr/lib/debug/<path-to-object>, that the files should not be
> executable (possibly a common mistake since objcopy preserves
> executable bits IIRC), and that the package names end in -dbg and the
> debug packages depend on an equal version of the package they provide
> debugging symbols for.
Actually, the whole writeup seems good, and some of it can be
kept informative rather than normative.
I'll queue this up for things to do when I do get some round
tuits to spend on policy, and see about adding -dbg packages for the
libraries I have.
manoj
--
My Boss needs a surge protector. That way her mouth would be buffered
from surprise spikes in her brain.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: